zlacker

A much simpler policy would be to have no curfew at all.

As someone who has participated in protests for 5 out of the last 6 days and was tear gassed, I can tell you that protestors are much more peaceful when the cops keep a distance. Once the armor shows up and the tear gassing starts protestors get angry.

>>jdavis+(OP)
I haven't been protesting but there should be an exception for when police escalate.

I've watched videos of peaceful protestors getting shield bashed by police which causes them to get really angry and then they get a beat down for being angry about it. It's a pretty human response to get angry when someone gets physically aggressive towards you.

>>jdavis+(OP)
I also agree with this. It seems like in the majority of cases at this point, the curfew does nothing but create unnecessary conflict. It almost creates an objective for protesters - to be serious about what they're protesting, they need to stay out after the curfew.

I think curfews do have a place when there's massive looting happening and the police need the streets clear so they can prevent it, but there hasn't been enough looting in several days to justify curfews.

>>awille+Q1
The case that will be made is that the curfew has caused the reduction in looting, by sending the most nonviolent protestors home and making it easier to distinguish those looting.

>>fennec+s2
Except there are still extremely large protests in DC/NY/LA after curfew but the looting appears to have stopped.

>>jdavis+(OP)
Maybe in areas where there have been no looting. In NYC its pretty frustrating to see midtown being looted and police having to babysit protesters that should be at home.

>>jdavis+(OP)
Look at their gears and equipment. The whole riot-police industry only focuses on anti-riot training and strategies. They don't practice for peaceful protests. They aren't designed for that and you can see it just by looking at what they are wearing and holding.

An armed protest without riot-police presence is normally more quiet than a peaceful protest with their presence.

It was a wrong call to send them to a peaceful protest in the first place. They should have published a proper schedule and location for the protest and let people to share their voices.

Police shouldn't guard the protesters. That's a recipe for chaos. They should guard the city, businesses, and take care of safety of protesters.

And it gets worst when the government focus is pushing police harder and harder to end the protest instead of helping them by telling people that their voice has been heard. Police under pressure starts overreacting to protesters instead of taking care of looters which has nothing to do with protesters.

No matter how much they try to control. Often they just get tired, things get messy and overwhelming and they start to beat people.

Now sadly there are also a small number of police force that are just waiting for a day to have an opportunity to enjoy and exercise all the anti-riot trainings they had with their fancy equipment. And that's where you see stupid unnecessary violence from police and no sign that they regret doing that.

>>rb808+t3
The police don't "have to" be occupied with protestors. The police are prioritizing punishing peaceful protestors for speaking out against them, while deprioritizing going after looting as its presence actually helps the police narrative.

>>awille+53
While I decline to specifically endorse that logic at this time, I don't think it is necessarily is in conflict with your observation. The crowd dynamics of protestors protesting after curfew and of that of looters may be quite different: one crowd, versus many smaller groups dispersed in the city, spreading out, with a mix of protesting and opportunistic looting (sometimes in the same group and sometimes not).